From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂
A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?Two things result from this fact:
I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.
II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.
To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.
Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .
In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.
Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.
In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;
“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.
For example
“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”
Says who exactly?
Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?
This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.
This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.
However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.
A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.
Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.
Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.
I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.
We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.
I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.
I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.
If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.
This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.
This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.
Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.
The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.
I have just realised that Rangers Youth Development Ltd actually owned the players and not Rangers. So was this Third Party Ownership ever declared to the Football Authorities.
And if a Third Party Owner was developing the youth players it owned then why should any compensation be paid to the club.
And if the Third Party Owner held the youth contracts then how could these players be transferred as part of the Rangers assets sold by D&P to Sevco Scotland?
And perhaps Dundee should check whether Telfer was actually Third Party Owned because they might want their money back 😆
From looking at the SPFL it looks like there are two parts to a deal on the young players in Tefler’s situation.
There is a table with costs per year/age (starting at 11) and by division the club is playing in to come up with a ‘Development Contribution. The other part of the overall fee is the compensation that appears to take account of the costs involved in training a lad up.
Therefore if the documentation is available then no doubt T’Rangers, with Murray Park can justify higher costs than say my previous example of Cowdenbeath.
By my reckoning the Development Contribution should have been in the region of £58k or around £7.25k per annum.
That leaves a cost of £112k for the eight years Telfer was at T’Rangers from age 11 to 18/19, or £14k per annum. So call it £21.25k per annum.
Happy to be corrected if I have misinterpreted.
So the statement has been changed within a few hours of its release. What is less clear is whether it was changed because Sevco acknowledge that ‘OCNC’ was not the basis of Dundee United’s claim, or alternatively because they recognise that not only have the authorities not ‘repeatedly’ recognised Sevco as the same club, but have actually not recognised them on a single occasion.
If I remember correctly somebody from the SFA stated words to the effect that the definition of a club could vary according to context, proving in the act that nobody in that organisation possesses a spine, tooth or testicle. This generic comment, however, was siezed upon by Sevco fans as proof of same club status, yet again providing proof of breath taking collective stupidity.
It entirely escaped their attention that no attempt was made by the SFA to explain how this generic statement might specifically apply to Sevco. There would seem to be three possibilities:
Sevco were the same club as Rangers in all contexts.
Sevco were a different club from Rangers in all contexts.
And thirdly, the inference that most Sevco fans made and portray as incontrovertible proof of their claim, namely that Sevco were the same club in some contexts. It really says it all that they utterly fail to recognise the corollary of this ie that in other contexts they were a new club.
wottpi says:
December 9, 2014 at 9:36 pm
If Telfer was at the club for 8 years then he must have come under the ownership of Rangers Youth Development Ltd for the majority of the time and that appears to open a can of worms as to the number of years, if any, that Rangers is entitled to claim compensation for.
I think Ecobhoy is quite correct to point out the lack of any credible argument from Dundee Utd. It just doesn’t make sense if they argued at all in line with their statement today.
Won’t they at some point rely on this very rule to protect their own young assets? They have been quite lucky IMO to be able to cash in on most of their really top players developed recently. Several good ones have left my club under compensation decisions rather than transfer fees.
The figure quoted seems about in line with what I believe my own club have recieved on 2 or possibly 3 occassions now when young players were snapped up by clubs at the end of their contract.
Its calculated in a fairly consistent way and I think the rate is influenced by the level of the players new club, so if moving to a more senior level of the game the compensation required may be higher. But not (if I remember correctly) influenced by the level that the player first club is deemed to operate at.
Anyway, £200k is what I would have guessed was due based on similar situations over the last 2-3 years.
As someone pointed out even if OC/NC was part of some debate surely this would only impact who was due to benefit rather than how much was due.
Also, I could be wrong in this but, I don’t think any agreement on Sevco buying the playing assets from Rangers should come in to play, ie it shouldn’t really give Rangers claim to the money. I say that because its common enough for young players to be sold or move from one club to another and then move on again within the development age group – and i’m sure compensation is in that case due to BOTH the developing clubs based on how long the player was registered at each.
I do find it intriguing however that the evidence or at least statement of the decision and reasons have not been released? What can they be hiding?
Last thought, didn’t Rangers try to pull exactly this move in avoiding compensation due when signing Sone Aluko from AFC a few seasons ago. If I recall correctly that was only resolved by Aluko himself paying some part of the compensation due to AFC.
As for Phil’s ‘latest belter’ I don’t think links to his blog do TSFM any favours in terms of credibility.
An individual making up random claims ‘apropos’ Sevco would manage a better ‘hit rate’.
TDs anticipated, and prepared to eat my words if events prove me wrong, but a very long time since I’ve had anything more than an unfilling snack.
Jeesuz we were discussing Tevez and Third party Ownership yesterday as if he was the first in Britain.
Now we know it started back in 2004 at Murray Park – could this be connected in some way to any difficulty in selling Auchenhowie?
This BBC piece makes it clear that Rangers didn’t own their youth players: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/3643791.stm
Bajram Fetai – At Rangers 2004-2006 on loan to ICT 2005. Now with Turkish football club Denizlispor.
Very interesting that the new Rangers have removed their ridiculous statement re continuity and SFA/SPFL support for that stance. I think TSFM should now ask SFA, the media and club chairman for immediate clarification. Let us all drive this to a conclusion once and for all
RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years.
I missed the original statement but again this statement ties them up in knots. the noun club becomes a proper noun – why? A club statement is no place for a metaphysical debate on OC/NC, nor does it give legally binding definitions of “the club”.
But it claims the player was there for ten years, that is inaccurate by the admin/liquidation/buying of assets process.
So what I have missed were TRFC awarded ten years worth of money?
“administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the Club”
That, right there, is the constantly repeated, deeply pernicious, and wholly misleading crux of the issue. No self-respecting Bampot should ever let words to that effect go unchallenged.
“Who played Berwick?” notwithstanding, I may be willing to accept that “Rangers”, the sporting-entity and member of the SFA, continued in 2012. Certainly the same management, and largely the same group of players, kept on playing in the same stadium and strips in front of the same fans. There is undeniably a degree of continuity that gives some legitimacy to the argument that they are the “same club”, only reconstituted. Whether that entitles them to claim the history of the former entity, and how that should be dealt with, I’ll put aside. As has been pointed out many times, it certainly didn’t entitle them to the league position or Scottish Cup entry of the original Rangers.
But it is inarguable that the then RFC plc, now RFC 2012 (in liquidation), did not own “the Club”. Neither does TRFCL “own” Rangers today. Whatever else they are, and whatever degree of continuity exists between them, they are the FORMAL LEGAL EMBODIMENT of the sporting entity the SFA (and presumably UEFA) would recognize as “Rangers”.
Those entities held the players’ registrations, every playing employee of “the Club” signed a contract with them, and that’s who the SFA served papers to when dealing with “Rangers”. Those companies (might have, depending on levels of onerousness) owned the image rights and trademarks. They owned the trophies, and the bike, and the Arsenal shares; at least ’til Craigy showed up. But the club itself was not an independent property of those companies. They ARE (or were) the club.
That they themselves were or are owned by OTHER companies, and the seemingly intentional conflation of operating companies and holding companies, does not make the above less correct.
But my gut tells me that they didn’t change their statement because they recognized they overreached, or some governing authority ticked them off. No, they probably just realized that the statement violated their own protocol of never mentioning the “L-word” and consequently reminding everyone what actually happened in 2012.
The DR is reporting that a lawyer representing United forced Rangers to remove the offending comments.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953
I dug-out a post I did back in July 2012 on scotslawthiughts which raised some issues wrt Rangers Youth Development but at the time I missed the ‘ownership’ aspect wrt to the young players – there was a lot happening at the time is my excuse and I’m sticking to it 😆
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/mr-green-would-you-rather-take-a-5-5-million-cheque-with-this-signature-or-cash-to-buy-rangers-by-ecojon/
Here’s the relevant section of the post:
Looking at the Charlie Telfer tribunal result it strikes me that the level of compensation awarded is entirely fair and ridiculous.
The tribunal properly constituted can only reach the sum based on the rules contained in its articles.
It’s a complicated structure and I don’t want to copy all of the rules here but the key elements in determining the level of compensation for development of a young player are as follows:
F20 Any costs relating to the Player concerned, including a contribution to overheads,
indirect and shared costs, incurred by the Club losing the player’s Registration in operating a youth development set-up such as for example, Football Academy,
Centre of Excellence or Youth Development Initiative, including (without limitation) the cost of providing for students:-
F20.1 living accommodation;
F20.2 training and playing facilities;
F20.3 scouting, coaching, administrative and other staff;
F20.4 education and welfare requirements;
F20.5 playing and training strip and other clothing;
F20.6 medical and first aid facilities; and,
F20.7 friendly and competitive matches and overseas tours.
F21 Any other costs incurred by the Club losing the player’s registration directly and/or indirectly attributable to the training and development of the Player.
F22 The criteria are:-
F22.1 the age of the Player;
F22.2 the amount of any transfer fee or Compensation paid by the Club losing
the player’s Registration when acquiring the Registration of the Player;
F22.3 the length of time during which the Club losing the player’s Registration
held the Registration of the Player;
F22.4 the terms of the new contract offered to the Player by each of the Clubs;
F22.5 the Player’s playing record in club and international team appearances;
and,
F22.6 substantiated interest shown by other clubs in acquiring the services of the Player.
There are also ‘development costs’ and again I don’t want to copy all of the rules which apply in reaching a determination of how these could be applicable but hopefully the link will encourage further reading.
Suffice to say that there are some numbers available which as far as I can see have not been updated since the formation of the SPFL. They do serve as a guide at least.
Dundee United are rightly due to make a payment that is something they themselves agree to, indeed they have complied with the rules prior to the tribunal by making an initial payment.
My inexpert reading of the rules that apply gives a hint as to the issues Dundee United could have raised.
It’s not OC/NC exactly; it’s more practical than that.
The tribunal is formulated to determine an amount payable as compensation.
It seems natural to conclude that the starting point in determining the value of such compensation would include detailed evidence of costs incurred in support of the claim.
The rules such as they are provide for exactly that:
F16 A Compensation Tribunal shall be entitled to call for any documentary evidence required by it and shall have the power to order the attendance of any Club, Official or Player at any relevant hearing. The secretary to a Compensation Tribunal shall be the Secretary or his appointed deputy.
We will almost certainly never know what if any documentary evidence was asked for or what was provided. In this case no one in the room would have been able to provide much by way of supporting the totality of expenses incurred. Those that incurred most of the expense have long since departed unless BDO take an interest.
I’m not sure what Dundee United are particularly aggrieved about, it seems to be the level of compensation and its wider effects rather than an issue with recipient of it.
Given the result the Rangers board look to have made the most of the opportunity to remind their support that they are the custodians of the one thing more important than the place called ‘rightful’.
They may slip and they may fall but the thing called ‘same’ must be secured.
It is in this case a curious thing for Rangers fans to hang their hat on. The reality is that a promising player turned them down and saw a better future elsewhere.
One would hope that the young man who has been the focus of recent attention is able to rise above it and pursue a successful career.
The ridiculous curiosities of his movement from two clubs to another will remain.
Compensation it seems can be paid in full to those that incurred only a fraction of the total expense accrued.
This is of course crazy.
But it is nevertheless happening.
I’m not sure if it is best described as ‘Alice in Wonderland’ or ‘Ally in Wongaland’.
But a suitable explanation is required.
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthespfl_1375800603.pdf
It would appear, according to the DR that a quick call from United’s brief caused them to change their tune…
“But after a lawyer representing United had forced Rangers to pull it off their website a new, shorter statement was put up – with no mention of the new club claim.
A United source told Record Sport: “The club were raging at Rangers perpetuating this myth.
“It was and always has been totally inaccurate and the fact that they acted so quickly to change their statement acknowledges that.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953?
Why didn’t Dundee United use the Rangers Youth Development Ltd as a the Reason for not paying a Higher fee.. If he wasn’t owned by the Old Rangers Football Club, then how could he have Tuped over to Sevco ?
Bryce Curdy says:
December 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm
8 16 Rate This
As for Phil’s ‘latest belter’ I don’t think links to his blog do TSFM any favours in terms of credibility.
An individual making up random claims ‘apropos’ Sevco would manage a better ‘hit rate’.
TDs anticipated, and prepared to eat my words if events prove me wrong, but a very long time since I’ve had anything more than an unfilling snack.
===================
I find them all quite intriguing myself.
Certainly don’t really see how things that are linked reflect on the blog really, everyone here is quite capable of deciding what they want to read or not? No?
Rangers updated/curtailed statement:
RANGERS has received today the decision of the SPFL Compensation Tribunal and are content with the fee Dundee United have been ordered to pay for the training and development of Charlie Telfer who was at the Club for a period of 10 years.
The payment awarded, which was significantly higher than Dundee United’s final offer, vindicates the Club’s decision to take the matter to a Compensation Tribunal.
I just asked Graham Spiers on Twitter what I previously posted on here and he seems to be ignoring my Question. I wonder why :slamb:
Without nit picking, the Dundee United lawyer couldn’t get them to take down the bit about history per se, only how it related directly to the claim that that was the frame of reference for Dundee united’s claim which we now assume wasn’t the case.
Interestingly though Sevco chose to remove the lot, lock stock. It’s almost as if confusion was the end, as well as the means.
Without getting into the legalities or the politics of the situation I think it’s fair to sum up the modified statement on The Rangers website by saying…
What a beamer! 😳
The_Pie_Man says:
December 9, 2014 at 10:38 pm
Why didn’t Dundee United use the Rangers Youth Development Ltd as a the Reason for not paying a Higher fee.. If he wasn’t owned by the Old Rangers Football Club, then how could he have Tuped over to Sevco ?
================================================================
Maybe they didn’t know about it? I often find the simpole answer is the correct one.
I didn’t realise until tonight the Third Party Ownership aspects wrt to all Rangers youth players from 2004 apparently up until 2010/11.
If I was Dundee Utd I would be checking it out asap and hopefully so will BDO and who knows – the way the boys in blue are crawling all over the sale of Rangers to Sevco Scotland they might be interested as well.
It’s a poser: If Rangers Youth Development Ltd owned the players as numerous statemements from Ibrox claimed in 2004 and the youth dervelopment company didn’t apply to be wound-up until after the IPO in December 2012 when were the players transferred back to Oldco.
Indeed were they ever transferred back to Oldco? And if they weren’t how could Sevco Scotland buy them?
Lot of unanswered questions IMO.
Matty Roth 10:43 pm
I have to disagree. Several of us may have been ‘intrigued’ at the prospect of Sevco paying £40k per week for an England U21 international, but few of us actually believed it. Phil’s claims are similarly intriguing. You can rest assured that if any of them had been proven by subsequent events to be accurate he would have let us know all about it. Not exactly shy or reluctant to seek self-attention.
And no, I don’t think TSFM should encourage links to ill informed, almost invariably inaccurate, tabloidesque blogs that pretend they have credibility when they are no better than the SMSM articles we openly deride, just because they are almost always what we want to believe (and that is the only difference).
Out of interest looked at the beebs take on the story. They still have the statement in full with a one liner at the end saying that a/ they have since removed the club bit and b/ a statement by Thompson saying he never raised the club issue which of course would beg the question. (You would have thought) so why the hell did you appeal then?
Today’s Tribunal ruling is one of the most ludicrous ever
TRFC claim in their statement, before editing, that they are one and the same club with an unbroken timeline
However they have always maintained that they have no responsibility for any of the debt as that lies with the ‘company’
How therefore can they lay claim to all of the Telfer compensation fee ?
If they had no responsibility for any of the previous financial arrangements, then logically they can have no claim to the portion of the cash spent before TRFC came into existence
As I said ludicrous, and another example of the absolute toxic mess our so called Football authorities have made of our game
StevieBC says:
December 9, 2014 at 5:34 pm
14 1 Rate This
howiemac says:
December 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Absolute belter from Phil Mac
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/in-the-loop/
================================================
Phil – please tell us that the reference to a fitting for ‘blazer and slacks’ was just your little joke ?! 😯
=====================================
‘course it was! A dead give away when he omitted the brown brogues
Brown Brogues in Town ? omg who are these people.. surely they Know U only wear Brown Brogues in the Country 😀
Bryce,
That Phil can be guilty of a degree of speculation (usually framed as such to be fair) and that there is a degree of patronising triumphalism in his writing is without question. That he does it in a way that is clearly, for want of a better or more legally accurate, bordering on the provocative term, anti rangers marks him out as in a distinct minority of those covering this story, which is why I personally still read him.
I’ve said all along for those that want to check back that the day I feel he does it purely and maliciously to worsen the catastrophe that is currently owned and operated by TRFC, itself held by RIFC, is the day I’ll stop reading his stuff. Up until now though they (Sevco) seem to have made and continue to make a pretty decent fist of making a bollox of it entirely on their own.
Martin says:
December 9, 2014 at 10:59 pm
Without getting into the legalities or the politics of the situation I think it’s fair to sum up the modified statement on The Rangers website by saying…
What a beamer! 😳
————————————————–
All I can say is that the Darkside has brought many a tear to my eye tonight.
Firstly we had the Triumphalism – Aye right that showed them! Then utter stunned shock. But to be fair they responded quite quickly with a huge variety of excuses ranging from it was a deliberate mistake to – a really inventive one – it was part of the tribunal evidence and we aren’t allowed to disclose it.
I actually am beginning to change my mind and starting to veer to the conclusion that there is actually no hope for them – they seem simply incapable of joined-up rational thought.
I continually argue on here that there is a hope that Bears could make a go of forming a new club but I now seriously doubt that is the case as it appears those capable of recognising facts and reality have departed the Blue Planet for postures new.
campsiejoe says:
December 9, 2014 at 11:13 pm
They have always maintained that they have no responsibility for any of the debt as that lies with the ‘company’ How therefore can they lay claim to all of the Telfer compensation fee?
=================================================================
That’s actually quite simple in legal if not moral terms, The youth contracts were transferred from oldco to Sevco Scotland by the administrators D&P because Sevco Scotland purchased the assets and business of Rangers including all player contracts. But the purchase agreement specifically excluded Sevco Scotland taking any liabilities for the debts of Oldco.
That was varied later wrt footballing debts owed to other clubs but that was a separate issue and doesn’t actually change the transfer of player ownership subject to Tupe of course.
However it appears there is now a question over when oldco actually ‘owned’ the youth players as Rangers have stated that these young players had a Third Party Owner viz Rangers Youth Development Ltd from circa 2004.
This raises all sorts of issues which I will try to investigate further tomorrow – it is intriguing.
ecobhoy says:
December 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm
Thanks for the earlier reminder
I had totally forgotten about the rather curious ‘arrangement’ regarding the youth set up, and the necessity of the club/company to buy these young players as they rolled off of the Murray park conveyor belt
Another variable in this continuing charade
The last paragraph in the original statement is a belter…
‘It is disapointing Dundee United tried to pursue this tiresome, legally incorrect and provocative argument given that it has been repeatedly confirmed by the football authorities in Scotland and beyond that administration and liquidation of the companies that owned the club did not break the continuity of the club’s history or it’s record of honours won’…
1. Legally incorrect?…then sue them…in fact sue anyone who states this…Donald Finlay QC would be a good starting point!
2. Provocative?…how so?
3. Repeatedly confirmed…by the football authorities and beyond that administartion and liquidation of the companies (plural)that owned the club?…the holding company (singular) Wavetower continued to trade and as far as I am aware still does…the only other company involved was the club itself. When did the football authorities in Scotland and beyond confirm the liquidation of Wavetower?
4. Did not break the club’s continuity? Why did Charles have to buy the history in that case?…why then was there a need to transfer membership?..why then did Charlies company neeed a vote to be allowed in?…I do not recall Craig Whtye being subjected to a vote in order to continue playing football in the SPL when he purchased the club/Company.
We can see why the original statement was changed…I’m guessing someone who is not from these parts produced it….ahhhh this would never have got past any of the previous black art PR guys…
Paulmac2 says:
December 10, 2014 at 12:10 am
It is beyond dispute, that for a period of approximately 6 weeks in the summer of 2012, there was no football club called Rangers or The Rangers
That is why neither the entity awaiting liquidation, nor the entity awaiting birth could play a single pre season game
This fact is totally ignored by everyone who wants to perpetuate the great continuity myth
Why did jack rush to print a pure riddy statement? Surely a period of reflection followed by humble acceptance of the tribunal’s largesse would have been more effective from a PR perspective?
Was it an attempt to thwart BDO’s claim on four sixths of the bounty (inc tax natch)? Was it an attempt to rally the bears to the mcmurdo ‘a’s again us!’ standard?
Or was it just another example of a wee boy walking in his father’s shoes?
Either way, they’ve made themselves a laughing stock.
How long before the fans decide that it’s time to grasp the nettle and start their own club?
Danish Pastry says:
December 9, 2014 at 8:41 pm
They don’t don’t do walking backwards for Christmas?
====================================================
Markedly only Neddie Seagoon could manage this aka Harry Secombe.
However I’m sure Ally will give it a go, The fool the fool.
As long as there is a Govan team playing in the senior leagues, there will inevitably – IMO – always be a bad smell hanging over the Hampden administrations.
The SFA in particular will always be regarded with suspicion and contempt by most fans.
Maybe once all the senior incumbents have moved on we might get the full, transparent, unvarnished truth in an effort by the SFA to repent for past behaviours.
(I know, and I haven’t even had a drink! )
…but that could be many years down the line. 😥
Phil
The suit blazer tie and well you know.
Maybe Slaters are better off.
I give you guess who,
“Credit is a system whereby a person who can not pay gets another person who can not pay to guarantee that he can pay”.
As Danish would have it
I’m calling my hansome and four.
ecobhoy says:
December 9, 2014 at 8:25 pm
16 0 Rate This
@auldheid posted this link on twitter earlier, it may be of use
The Battered Bunnet
18:44 on 9 December, 2014
The Telfer issue is a complex one, not a cut and dried situation. Until (and unless)there’s a written decision in the public domain, we can only guess as to the reasoning.
The complexity flows from the circumstances:
In order to protect and encourage the development of youth players in the Bosman era, players accrue a compensation sum for each year of their development with a registered club.
In effect, this means that if a player elects to leave a club at the end of his contract, the club will receive a sum from the player’s new club to reflect the investment they have made in the player’s development to date.
Where more than one club has invested to develop the player, the compensation is distributed accordingly.
The complexity in this case arises not from the issue of whether compensation is due – it absolutely is – but to whom it is due.
The player was with ‘Rangers’ from aged 12, ‘Rangers’ being the SFA licensed ‘club’ Rangers plc.
However, ‘Rangers’ – the SFA licensed club – ceased to trade in 2012.
Additionally, ‘Rangers’ had a legal framework whereby the registrations or other economic interest in their youth players was owned – wholly or in part – by Rangers Youth Development Ltd.
The proceeds from the sale of youth players were due – wholly or in part – to RYD Ltd as part of the funding structure of the entity.
RYD Ltd was dissolved in 2013.
R plc was placed into liquidation in 2012.
RIFC/TRFC was incorporated and began trading in 2012, having purchased the assets of R plc.
Clearly, RIFC/TRFC invested in the development of Telfer in the period since 2012, and consequently are due to be compensated for that investment.
Prior to 2012, the investment was made by R plc via its RYD Ltd subsidiary, although the debenture holders of subsidiary had an economic interest in any proceeds, subject to terms unknown.
Which entity is due how much of what Training Compensation for Telfer can only be speculated upon, but I would be surprised if the Liquidators of R plc do not consider the interests of their Creditors when news emerges that there’s a 6 figure dividend to be paid on the back of the investment made by the liquidated company.
TBB
Sadly, as ever, our so called ‘decent’ sports hacks are reduced to trolling over TRFC/Dundee Utd/Charlie Telfer. Anyone on twitter can have a look at the timelines of Mr Spiers and Mr English if they wish. Below is a taster from Spiers.
According to the Daily Record, it was Dundee Utd’s lawyer who forced TRFC to amend their website statement.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953
Norman Crighton NED has left the building
Norman Crighton off the RIFC board, with immediate effect (AIM announcement).
upthehoops says:
December 10, 2014 at 7:00 am
2 1 Rate This
According to the Daily Record, it was Dundee Utd’s lawyer who forced TRFC to amend their website statement.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953
============================================================================
I note from the article that it is being reported that Derek Llambias attended the Telfer tribunial.
A world record for the level of hands on work undertaken by a Non Executive Director?
Famous song says:
December 10, 2014 at 7:43 am
Was it not the case that Crighton had links to Laxey.
Where does that leave them now?
If disgruntled will they become a stumbling block with the potential to scupper to any grand plan with a GIRUY attitude??
ianagain says:
December 10, 2014 at 12:55 am
5 0 Rate This
———–
Though possibly not backwards across the Irish Sea
Just a wee thumbs up for our new National newspaper. I’m sittng here with my digital edition and there’s a fascinating story about the ‘Catalan Celtic’. Quite an inspiration to read of how Scottish football affected our Spanish cousins. Great story and also lovely to have a modest 7th-tier club making the headlines. Would have much easier to lift blanket PA reports on last night’s CL yawnathon.
Also a very interesting quote from the lad Pukki, whom I understand has been fitting in nicely at Brøndby. He likes playing here (well, he would say that) but he feels that most teams ‘are of a similar standard’. So something perhaps in the distribution of finance and resources among clubs is perhaps more equitable? The Danish league is a very good comparison to the Scottish since the population, size of leagues and geographical distribution is very similar (unlike Sweden and Norway where the locations of some clubs can be the same difference as between Glasgow and Munich).
The end result is a more competitive league, but then again the DBU do appear to represent the broad church and not just the chosen few.
@upthehoops
Spiers seemed a little too easily put in his place by Paul Tyrrell yesterday. Is Tyrrell actually still employed by Ibrox?
The Crighton departure from the Blue Room may be a significant turning point in this saga, in my opinion. Assuming Crighton isn’t replaced by another Laxey nominee, does this mean that Laxey have decided to cut their losses and jump ship, before the ship hits the iceberg? Their current shareholding would certainly entitle them to a seat on the Board. If they’ve sold up, who could the buyer be? Or is this Uncle Mike wielding the big stick and showing everyone who is the real boss man?
Danish Pastry says:
December 10, 2014 at 8:16 am
If true a bit of a cheek asking money for 1st team appearance cash when the greatest and highest paid manager in the land couldn’t stomach playing the lad against the plumbers and joiners of the lower leagues.
Presumably the SPFL compensation rules takes account of the amount of cotton wool used at Murray Park when it comes to developing young talent.
wottpi says:
December 10, 2014 at 7:50 am
4
0
Rate This
upthehoops says:
December 10, 2014 at 7:00 am
2 1 Rate This
According to the Daily Record, it was Dundee Utd’s lawyer who forced TRFC to amend their website statement.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-forced-u-turn-charlie-telfer-4778953
===========================================================
Being reported that Derek Llambias attended the Telfer tribunial. A world record for the level of hands on work undertaken by a Non Executive Director?
————————————————-
Possibly an indicator of how seriously his boss views the amount of cash for training and development compensation currently tied-up in a group of young players. Probably at least £3-4 million.
Small beer for Mike but maybe a month + for Rangers.
A bit of a non story from Jackson on Ibrox attendances. I think everyone knows by now that the published attendance figures for both Ibrox and Parkhead assume that every ST holder turns up for every game. But in fact they don’t. So no news there, then.
http://t.co/IgrD4Un9Ek
neepheid says:
December 10, 2014 at 8:59 am
====================
To be fair to Jackson (can’t believe I ‘m saying that) the story is not really about clubs reporting false attendances, as you say everyone knows that, but rather that the Chairman of a club acknowledges the fact; although I note he can’t help adding in a few thousand!
I say acknowledge rather than admit because I suspect he is responding to Jackson. Cynicism prevails however and I suspect the story is just part of a drip feed precursor to a negative outcome on the horizon; for TRFC that is.
neepheid says:
December 10, 2014 at 8:59 am
A bit of a non story from Jackson on Ibrox attendances. I think everyone knows by now that the published attendance figures for both Ibrox and Parkhead assume that every ST holder turns up for every game. But in fact they don’t. So no news there, then.
http://t.co/IgrD4Un9Ek
==========================================
I don’t actually agree with you on this one. I agree that it isn’t news that all clubs afaik count no-show ST holders in the match day attendance.
But when it comes to a club in such a desperate financial position as Rangers with an agm days away then it beggars belief that they would claim a 28,000 official attendance and now have to revise down the actual attendance with the club’s chairman David Somers now confessing it was only 19,000. If only 😆
Even during the match Rangers fan sites were awash with regular Bear posters – many at the game – claiming the actual attendance was around 15K. And the Vass pics graphically captured the undending vista of the empty blue seats of Ibrox.
Just think about that for a second – they have approx 23K ST holders IIRC and if the fans are correct in their estimation of attendance it equates to no walk-up sales and only 65% of ST holders actually attending.
And as if that’s not bad enough Somers has had to admit some of the truth wrt the actual attendance figure which the fans have laughed at. I really wonder how long after the agm that Somers will survive at Ibrox.
Might be time to head for Slaters to get measured-up for his demob suit to return to civvy street life away from the warzone of the bitter civil war that has engulfed Ibrox. And that’s even before Ashley’s tanks have moved out the Albion car park and headed for the Blue Room bunker to see if the spivs have left anything behind after their hasty exit.
Somers I’m afraid has become yet another busted flush and will soon be gone IMO. Even the onerous contract holders are fizzing because the attendance figures aren’t triggering their gravy train.
And low numbers means a slump in catering income – I’m sure that must affect someone as well.
Just a wee thought.
How many people will be left to fill the top table by the time the AGM comes along and will those who are in that position have any clue about how the club/company was/is run and have answers to the awkward questions the fans really want answered.
Will be interesting to see if Llambais is allowed to take the floor and perhaps go further in the home truths department than Wallace was allowed last year.
ecobhoy says:
December 10, 2014 at 9:53 am
I’m afraid has become yet another busted flush and will soon be gone IMO. Even the onerous contract holders are fizzing because the attendance figures aren’t triggering their gravy train.
And low numbers means a slump in catering income – I’m sure that must affect someone as well.
======================
I have wondered for a while now whether home games are currently an occasion for dread rather than rejoicing in the Blue Room, because without significant income from walk-ups, catering, etc, they must surely be spending more than they are taking.
In the Charles Green era, home crowds were consistently over 40k, which amazed me at the time, although Charles Green does make P T Barnum look like a failed amateur in the world of snake-oil salesmanship. That must have generated significant income. Where it all went is of course subject to a police investigation, we are told, so I’ll say no more.
On current crowds, it is surely only a very short time before either all the major players just walk away, leaving insolvency as the only option, or someone puts up some really big bucks. It’s now all down to Ashley, in my opinion. If he walks away, it’s game over. However this pantomime has been running for so long now, and with so many twists and turns, that absolutely nothing would surprise me- except Dave King actually putting his hand in his own pocket, that is.
campsiejoe says:
December 9, 2014 at 11:13 pm
I think it falls in line with the fact they were made to settle football debts, campsie. Not saying it’s right to do so, but if football can say ‘you have to settle all football related debts’, maybe it’s only fair that they can claim any income from the football side of RFC also. There are, of course, other arguments involved, but it could well be the ‘football’ argument that the tribunal would recognise, rather than the actual legal argument. As has now been made clear, United weren’t using the ‘different club’ argument, we will never know how it would have been dealt with if actually challenged.
Neepheid,
Agreed, what’s left of the Directorship must cringe in their lofty positions in the main stand as they gaze out over a sea of empty blue seats.
They have a great view of money simply draining away.
IIRC, Phil commented in the past that they need 30k every game just to break even.
In addition, revenues generated over 40k (no laughing!)make their way, allegedly, to Normandie to keep some thoroughbreds in oats.
It’s not going to end well.
neepheid says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:11 am
I have long said I would not be surprised if somehow enough money is kept flowing into the club to get them back to the Premiership.
That is the aim, where big crowds can be generated with a marketing campaign of ‘We are back where we belong’ type stuff and special new edition strips for all to buy.
However I have also said that McCoist is the biggest hurdle in achieving that aim. The football on offer and the lack of crowds must be worrying for those with cash to spend.
If fans aren’t turning out for a team nicely placed in second in the Chamionship are they going to turn out in force for a team struggling to get anywhere near the top in the Premiership.
To have a go at the Premiership you have to dump McCoist and his pals and then pay for a decent manager. you also have to replace all the end of contract players and revitalize the squad.
All of that requires a significant investment with no guarantee of a high finishing position in a league, where more teams will put up more fight than this year’s one off cup games.
neepheid says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:11 am
——————————————
I agree these low numbers are real bad news and are a big story. If fans do not go in money evaporates in front of investors eyes. No money no point of spivs staying. They have made a few bucks in a entity that means nothing to them, credit to them (pardon the pun). End game may be near but who knows, someone may come up with a new way to take money from the Govan clubs.
Allyjambo says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:20 am
Only fly in the ointment, is that it was Sevco Scotland who were required, as a condition of membership, to pay the football debts of RFC
RFC now in liquidation have not paid any debts
neepheid says:
December 10, 2014 at 8:59 am
At least he’s taking the facts to non-internet bampots and those who still believe everything they read in the ‘newspapers’. He has also pointed out, though in a scaredy cat sort of way ie not expanded on it, the seriousness of reduced attendances in light of the Deloittes’ ‘going concern’ concerns!
Still, he did forget to ask how much of the crowd was actually made up of season ticket holders, and how many actually paid to get in. These figures would be far more telling! So sticking to form is our dear old Keith 🙄
campsiejoe says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:40 am
That may be factual, but when have those at Hampden used facts as a basis for aiding TRFC?
As promised here is a Les Hutchison update –
http://www.bqlive.co.uk/2014/10/03/forging-a-better-business-future-for-scotland/ a radical
He sounds like the perfect fit for a community club like Motherwell and their values. My interpretation (from very limited knowledge) is that he is not interested in Motherwell as a football club but as an asset worth protecting for the local community that he knows extremely well and has fond memories of.
I have attempted to penetrate the Absolute Wall of Silence erected by both ‘Well Society and Boardroom contacts and basically been told that no news will be forthcoming until final resolution one way or another.
mungoboy says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:28 am
In addition, revenues generated over 40k (no laughing!) make their way, allegedly, to Normandie to keep some thoroughbreds in oats. It’s not going to end well.
====================================
Och I wouldn’t be so sure 😀 Not as long as the French prefer horsemeat to succulent lamb then I’m sure Charles will still be able to make a few bob out of ‘Ibrox’ and the rest of his old nags.
Allyjambo says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:59 am
And that is the root of the whole problem
If 28,137 was the smallest home crowd for a Rangers league game in 28 years of continuous history (yes, I know), then how far do we need to go back for Somers’ 19,000 and how far back for “ticket office staff had calculated the gate at precisely 15,902.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-chairman-david-somers-admits-4777607
Allyjambo says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:59 am
‘.That may be factual, but when have those at Hampden used facts as a basis for aiding TRFC?’
campsiejoe says:
December 10, 2014 at 10:40 am
‘.. it was Sevco Scotland who were required, as a condition of membership, to pay the football debts of RFC.’
————–
This will surely test the skills and integrity of BDO, whose prime duty it is to seek and lay claim to any monies owed to the liquidated entity,RFC(IL).
I would suggest that handshake, blood-oath sworn secret, gentlemen’s (I use the word loosely) ‘football’ agreements which jump over the plain legal facts should be brushed aside as the legal contradiction that they are.The bulk of of any money owed in the present case is owed to RFC(IL).
And BDO will be, OUGHT to be taking measures to claim it on behalf of the creditors of that rogue club.
If they don’t, they will surely invite criticism from their professional regulators.
Just catching up on the previous few months of goings on after a long illness.
So there’s a new shake down artist in the Big House. Plus ca change…
One thought does occur from recent days though…
What happens to Rangers debt if Mcleod refuses to sign for Newcastle??
ptd1978 says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:15 am
He gets taken down a dark ally (no pun intended) by a couple of large blokes 😥
weeman says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:03 am
I’ve read a few articles now on Les Hutchison and the guy is either a saint or a total villain 😆 And if Motherwell is lucky he might be that rare mix of the two that could transform the club and in turn benefit the local community in lots of ways.
And I suspect that Les sees helping create something for the locals to be proud of and enhance their self-respect as well as fuelling positive ambitions would be a big step towards the goal he is trying to achieve.
And being a genuine successful businessman with a clear and proven track record then it’s a given IMO that the governance and financial probity of any club he is involved with will be paramount.
So I certainly think he is very welcome to Scottish Football with lots to offer it and, of course, Motherwell.
A lot of my pals at Uni came from Motherwell/Hamilton and area and I never ceased to be amazed at their support for their clubs although at local Derby Games us ootsiders had to tread very warily 😆
mcfc says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:06 am
0
0
Rate This
If 28,137 was the smallest home crowd for a Rangers league game in 28 years of continuous history (yes, I know), then how far do we need to go back for Somers’ 19,000 and how far back for “ticket office staff had calculated the gate at precisely 15,902.”
————–
As I type, Wikipedia is giving the record low home league attendance as the Cowdenbeath game with a figure of 18137. What’s the source for that then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rangers_F.C._records_and_statistics
mcfc says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:06 am
1 0 Rate This
Is this what your looking for?
http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/club_records_league_attendance.php
@mungo
Seems now clear why all those free tickets were doing the rounds when Charlie was getting huge crowds. Pushing it over the 40,000 mark released his onerous. Suppose it didn’t matter if they were paying punters or not.
John Clark says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:10 am
Have you seen this from
ecobhoy December 9, 2014 at 11:39 pm
They have always maintained that they have no responsibility for any of the debt as that lies with the ‘company’ How therefore can they lay claim to all of the Telfer compensation fee?
=================================================================
That’s actually quite simple in legal if not moral terms, The youth contracts were transferred from oldco to Sevco Scotland by the administrators D&P because Sevco Scotland purchased the assets and business of Rangers including all player contracts. But the purchase agreement specifically excluded Sevco Scotland taking any liabilities for the debts of Oldco.
That was varied later wrt footballing debts owed to other clubs but that was a separate issue and doesn’t actually change the transfer of player ownership subject to Tupe of course.
However it appears there is now a question over when oldco actually ‘owned’ the youth players as Rangers have stated that these young players had a Third Party Owner viz Rangers Youth Development Ltd from circa 2004.
This raises all sorts of issues which I will try to investigate further tomorrow – it is intriguing.
joburgt1m says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:27 am
http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/club_records_league_attendance.php
=================================================================
Cheers, So only back one more year then
86/87 22,992 lowest
85/86 12,731 lowest
Wasn’t good in the eighties was it?
mcfc says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:06 am
If 28,137 was the smallest home crowd for a Rangers league game in 28 years of continuous history (yes, I know), then how far do we need to go back for Somers’ 19,000 and how far back for “ticket office staff had calculated the gate at precisely 15,902.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-chairman-david-somers-admits-4777607
=============================================================
I see the Ibrox spiv PR squad are out in force on the Darkside and one of their scripts reads: ‘How would the ticket office staff know what ST holders had attended’.
I will ignore the obvious fact that if the ticket office staff didn’t know how could Somers arrive at his revised 19K figure?
But that would be a cruel bit of Bear Baiting so I will simply provide a clue: ‘Electronic Turnstyle Feedback’. Although perhaps Ibrox has turned back the wagon wheels and is now using a biscuit tin. C’est la vie.
joburgt1m says:
December 10, 2014 at 11:27 am
Is this what your looking for?
http://www.fitbastats.com/rangers/club_records_league_attendance.php
——————–
Thanks for the link to that site, not seen it before. I’ll not be getting any work done the rest of the day.